In which we interpret the Apple CEO's vague answers about the next iOS.

For the second time in as many years, Apple CEO Tim Cook took the stage at the All Things D conference for a conversation with Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher. And for the second time in as many years, Cook gamely swung at the softball questions without revealing much new information.

This isn't a surprise; as one of tech's most prominent CEOs, Cook isn't prone to quote-worthy gaffes or going off-message. He's also about two weeks out from a keynote at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference (WWDC), which is widely expected to bring us Apple's first new software and hardware announcements in months.

Of those WWDC announcements, the most highly anticipated are those about Apple's flagship operating systems. OS X and iOS are both on yearly update cycles, and this year's updates are of particular interest. They'll be the first developed under the leadership of Apple design chief Jony Ive and software engineering senior vice president Craig Federighi in the wake of Scott Forstall's departure (and subsequent management shake-up) last year.

At All Things D, Cook said practically nothing about OS X, but he did give a couple of iOS-related answers that suggest in broad terms what we can expect from iOS 7. Like prospectors, we'll sift through his quotes to find the flecks of gold among the dirt.

Above the hood: a new look

Aurich Lawson

We've been hearing for a while that a visual overhaul of iOS is at the top of Ive's list of priorities, and Cook confirmed that Apple's longtime hardware designer has been "really key" to the direction of the OS. This is widely assumed to mean the end of skeumorphism in iOS, a transition away from textures and things that vaguely resemble their real-world counterparts.

"We recognized that Jony had contributed significantly to the look and feel of Apple over many, many years," Cook said, "and could do that for our software as well. I think it's absolutely incredible."

The comment is merely confirmation of something that we've been expecting since Forstall was shown the door. The real question is: just how far will this redesign go? For an answer, look no further than the Podcasts app.

Unlike many Apple-designed iOS apps, Podcasts is a separate download that is updated independently of the rest of the operating system. It was introduced before Forstall's departure but has since been given a major update. That update didn't drastically change how the application worked, but it removed the cutesy reel-to-reel animation and exposed all of the controls instead of hiding them under the podcast's artwork.

These are the sorts of updates I expect we'll see out of the next iOS version—removing superfluous visual flourishes but not drastically changing the way the built-in applications function or (in most cases) the way they're laid out.

Apple-watcher Jim Dalrymple suggested this morning that the iOS overhaul would be more akin to the way OS X's look has gradually shifted over the years, and I'm inclined to agree. iOS 7 won't suddenly look like Windows Phone 8, and Apple probably can't move things around too much without upsetting change-resistant users. However, it will change the OS enough to freshen its visual identity (much of which is going on six years old now) and that may be enough to allay complaints about any iOS "staleness."

Under the hood: Opening the APIs

Enlarge/ Apple plans to open iOS up a little more to third-party customization. Will we finally be able to use third-party apps as defaults, as we can in Android?

Andrew Cunningham

I switch between iOS and Android devices with some regularity, and when I return to iOS there are a few things about Android that I really miss: the ability to switch out the keyboard, to define third-party apps as the defaults for certain tasks, and the ability to use the Intents system to freely share information between different apps. In iOS, using third-party replacements for the built-in apps is possible—but setting them as the defaults isn't.

Even more than giving the operating system a fresh coat of paint, making iOS more flexible will be key in keeping it competitive. That's an issue that Cook acknowledged last night, with some caveats.

"On the general topic of opening up APIs," said Cook, "I think you'll see us open up more in the future, but not to the degree that we put the customer at risk of having a bad experience. There's always a fine line to walk there—or maybe not so fine in some cases."

"We think that the customer pays us to make certain choices on their behalf," he continued. While some may want to dive into multiple settings screens to tweak their phones to be just the way they want them, Cook doesn't see this as a welcome feature for mainstream customers. "But, will we open up more? Yes."

Cook didn't say specifically what this "opening up" would entail, exactly, but it does seem like hopeful news for the people who only jailbreak because they would like to set Google Maps or Mailbox to be their defaults.

If I had to guess, I'd say the changes will fall somewhere between the inflexibility of iOS as it is now and the extreme, fundamentally experience-altering flexibility of Android. It seems likely that third-party applications will be able to integrate more deeply into the operating system, replacing the defaults and sharing information more freely, but it seems unlikely that Apple would allow third-parties to replace anything as fundamental as the application launcher or even the keyboard.

This is all just speculation, of course, but it's all done with Cook's "fine line" in mind. Apple will still want the experience of using any iPhone or iPad to be fundamentally similar across devices (thus avoiding the fragmentation of experience that Apple execs have railed against in the past), but allowing users to open links with Chrome by default instead of Safari shouldn't do much to upset this balance.

This is all so much tea-leaf reading until the notoriously secretive Apple actually gets up on stage and starts making official announcements, of course. Our own Jacqui Cheng will be on the floor at WWDC covering Cook's keynote, and with any luck Cook will be just a little more open about the future of the platform.

Promoted Comments

You know what wasn't stale and boring? Windows Vista and now Windows 8. How's that worked out for users?

An operating system shouldn't be exciting or stimulating. It should be predictable, consistent, and just stay out of the user's way. Familiarity is a hell of a lot more important than some whizzy new interface that users have to learn.

As for a new coat of paint, I'm not opposed, but how superficial are the people who threaten to leave such a key daily experience on account of "boredom"?

I agree with your analysis on many levels, but introductions of new features to operating systems has driven my ability to more fully utilize the computing devices I own. Gestures on OSX made my interactions with my computer more organic and allowed me to more quickly activate functions. Inertial scrolling made the interaction of scanning through long documents and webpages more representative of how we expect the physical world around us to react to our actions.

One new feature that fundamentally changed how I interact with my computer was the introduction of Mission Control. Before Lion, I hated multiple desktops on a single screen as switching between them was a pain for me and I ended up losing where I had my apps open. Mission Control and Full Screen apps has changed my multitasking behaviors.

This introductions have kept OSX fresh for me. It isn't about forcing users to adjust to a new normal, but rather an introduction of ideas and capability that did not exist before.

Bingo, OSX is a perfect example of doing it right. And I think iOS is travelling the same path.

Apple adds a few new features every year without overhauling the interface into a disorienting mess (which is what all the tech bloggers seem to be calling for). You'd hardly know the difference between 10.6 and 10.8 until you activated Mission Control or Launchpad or Notification Center. A Snow Leopard user can easily use Mountain Lion without getting lost. With UI, evolution is the key, not revolution. (Until we come up with a revolutionary new interface like multitouch.)

Andrew Cunningham
Andrew has a B.A. in Classics from Kenyon College and has over five years of experience in IT. His work has appeared on Charge Shot!!! and AnandTech, and he records a weekly book podcast called Overdue. Twitter@AndrewWrites

I will be disappointed if there is not a significant visual overhaul to iOS. To me, iOS' appeal has always been about the very broad selection of apps. More and more though, I just hate staring at rows of icons. It's getting boring to look at.

"We think that the customer pays us to make certain choices on their behalf,"

This statement probably conveys the essence of Apple's product line more clearly than anything else I've heard. And it's pretty much exactly true for about 99% of their customers.

I happen to disagree when it comes to my own gear -- Android manufacturers also make choices for their customers but you can do something else if you disagree with the choice -- but you can't argue with Apple's financial success with this philosophy.

You know what wasn't stale and boring? Windows Vista and now Windows 8. How's that worked out for users?

An operating system shouldn't be exciting or stimulating. It should be predictable, consistent, and just stay out of the user's way. Familiarity is a hell of a lot more important than some whizzy new interface that users have to learn.

As for a new coat of paint, I'm not opposed, but how superficial are the people who threaten to leave such a key daily experience on account of "boredom"?

Having watched the video, Kara Swisher is a sourpuss interviewer; she's always dry and seems to have disdain for the interviewees. A big stumbling block for Mossberg's legit tech questions.

Agreed, Kara seems to want to ask "hard" questions. She should know that the CEO of Apple will only give intentionally vague answers to specific questions, whereas Walt gets specific answers to intentionally vague questions.

All in all, it was less enlightening on the surface than some of the Jobs interviews, but there were some gems like the analysis of wearing smart glasses that add weight to the frame. I think that it is more interesting to listen to what Cook wouldn't talk about than what he would.

I really hope ios 7 brings further enhancements to enterprise management. Samsung SAFE and KNOX are nice additions for Android and I think Apple need to work in this area if they want ios to be more readily usable in the corporate world.

You know what wasn't stale and boring? Windows Vista and now Windows 8. How's that worked out for users?

An operating system shouldn't be exciting or stimulating. It should be predictable, consistent, and just stay out of the user's way. Familiarity is a hell of a lot more important than some whizzy new interface that users have to learn.

As for a new coat of paint, I'm not opposed, but how superficial are the people who threaten to leave such a key daily experience on account of "boredom"?

It's a good thing you weren't around when Xerox PARC created the first GUI or Microsoft decided to go from Windows 3.1 to Windows XP.

You know what wasn't stale and boring? Windows Vista and now Windows 8. How's that worked out for users?

An operating system shouldn't be exciting or stimulating. It should be predictable, consistent, and just stay out of the user's way. Familiarity is a hell of a lot more important than some whizzy new interface that users have to learn.

As for a new coat of paint, I'm not opposed, but how superficial are the people who threaten to leave such a key daily experience on account of "boredom"?

It's a good thing you weren't around when Xerox PARC created the first GUI or Microsoft decided to go from Windows 3.1 to Windows XP.

A lot of the frustration was going from xp to vista, lots of unnecessary changes were done, like the control panel. Win8 wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't one gui built on top of another one.

You know what wasn't stale and boring? Windows Vista and now Windows 8. How's that worked out for users?

An operating system shouldn't be exciting or stimulating. It should be predictable, consistent, and just stay out of the user's way. Familiarity is a hell of a lot more important than some whizzy new interface that users have to learn.

As for a new coat of paint, I'm not opposed, but how superficial are the people who threaten to leave such a key daily experience on account of "boredom"?

It's a good thing you weren't around when Xerox PARC created the first GUI or Microsoft decided to go from Windows 3.1 to Windows XP.

Now there's a specious if not downright disingenuous comparison.

The CLI to GUI transition was a revolutionary change in interface paradigm that also introduced/required a new hardware interface. This is akin to Apple introducing the multitouch interface that came with iOS. It was a game changer. I fail to see how adding widgets or a faddish "flat" interface or whatever the geeks are jonesing for can be considered a game changer.

(As for Windows 3.1 to XP, you entirely skipped Windows 95 and Windows 98 — I'm fine with pretending ME never existed — in between for some reason. Also, the user interface between Windows 95 to Windows XP saw very little functional changes.)

You know what wasn't stale and boring? Windows Vista and now Windows 8. How's that worked out for users?

An operating system shouldn't be exciting or stimulating. It should be predictable, consistent, and just stay out of the user's way. Familiarity is a hell of a lot more important than some whizzy new interface that users have to learn.

As for a new coat of paint, I'm not opposed, but how superficial are the people who threaten to leave such a key daily experience on account of "boredom"?

I agree with your analysis on many levels, but introductions of new features to operating systems has driven my ability to more fully utilize the computing devices I own. Gestures on OSX made my interactions with my computer more organic and allowed me to more quickly activate functions. Inertial scrolling made the interaction of scanning through long documents and webpages more representative of how we expect the physical world around us to react to our actions.

One new feature that fundamentally changed how I interact with my computer was the introduction of Mission Control. Before Lion, I hated multiple desktops on a single screen as switching between them was a pain for me and I ended up losing where I had my apps open. Mission Control and Full Screen apps has changed my multitasking behaviors.

This introductions have kept OSX fresh for me. It isn't about forcing users to adjust to a new normal, but rather an introduction of ideas and capability that did not exist before.

You know what wasn't stale and boring? Windows Vista and now Windows 8. How's that worked out for users?

An operating system shouldn't be exciting or stimulating. It should be predictable, consistent, and just stay out of the user's way. Familiarity is a hell of a lot more important than some whizzy new interface that users have to learn.

As for a new coat of paint, I'm not opposed, but how superficial are the people who threaten to leave such a key daily experience on account of "boredom"?

I agree with your analysis on many levels, but introductions of new features to operating systems has driven my ability to more fully utilize the computing devices I own. Gestures on OSX made my interactions with my computer more organic and allowed me to more quickly activate functions. Inertial scrolling made the interaction of scanning through long documents and webpages more representative of how we expect the physical world around us to react to our actions.

One new feature that fundamentally changed how I interact with my computer was the introduction of Mission Control. Before Lion, I hated multiple desktops on a single screen as switching between them was a pain for me and I ended up losing where I had my apps open. Mission Control and Full Screen apps has changed my multitasking behaviors.

This introductions have kept OSX fresh for me. It isn't about forcing users to adjust to a new normal, but rather an introduction of ideas and capability that did not exist before.

Bingo, OSX is a perfect example of doing it right. And I think iOS is travelling the same path.

Apple adds a few new features every year without overhauling the interface into a disorienting mess (which is what all the tech bloggers seem to be calling for). You'd hardly know the difference between 10.6 and 10.8 until you activated Mission Control or Launchpad or Notification Center. A Snow Leopard user can easily use Mountain Lion without getting lost. With UI, evolution is the key, not revolution. (Until we come up with a revolutionary new interface like multitouch.)

I'd like them to open up access to their javascript engine for other web browsers. Safari is really lacking in features on iOS so it would be helpful in improving the appeal of alternative web browsers.

You know what wasn't stale and boring? Windows Vista and now Windows 8. How's that worked out for users?

An operating system shouldn't be exciting or stimulating. It should be predictable, consistent, and just stay out of the user's way. Familiarity is a hell of a lot more important than some whizzy new interface that users have to learn.

As for a new coat of paint, I'm not opposed, but how superficial are the people who threaten to leave such a key daily experience on account of "boredom"?

I agree with your analysis on many levels, but introductions of new features to operating systems has driven my ability to more fully utilize the computing devices I own. Gestures on OSX made my interactions with my computer more organic and allowed me to more quickly activate functions. Inertial scrolling made the interaction of scanning through long documents and webpages more representative of how we expect the physical world around us to react to our actions.

One new feature that fundamentally changed how I interact with my computer was the introduction of Mission Control. Before Lion, I hated multiple desktops on a single screen as switching between them was a pain for me and I ended up losing where I had my apps open. Mission Control and Full Screen apps has changed my multitasking behaviors.

This introductions have kept OSX fresh for me. It isn't about forcing users to adjust to a new normal, but rather an introduction of ideas and capability that did not exist before.

I would love to use more full screen apps. If only I could have more than one open with my multiple monitors at a time.

"We think that the customer pays us to make certain choices on their behalf,"

This statement probably conveys the essence of Apple's product line more clearly than anything else I've heard. And it's pretty much exactly true for about 99% of their customers.

I happen to disagree when it comes to my own gear -- Android manufacturers also make choices for their customers but you can do something else if you disagree with the choice -- but you can't argue with Apple's financial success with this philosophy.

I was going to make basically this exact same comment when I saw the story, but decided not to bother when I recalled that my personal peanut gallery would be along to vote it down to -20 soon enough.

Walled garden or padded room, whatever you want to call it, Apple likes to hold on to the control.

Bingo, OSX is a perfect example of doing it right. And I think iOS is travelling the same path.

Apple adds a few new features every year without overhauling the interface into a disorienting mess (which is what all the tech bloggers seem to be calling for). You'd hardly know the difference between 10.6 and 10.8 until you activated Mission Control or Launchpad or Notification Center. A Snow Leopard user can easily use Mountain Lion without getting lost. With UI, evolution is the key, not revolution. (Until we come up with a revolutionary new interface like multitouch.)

Okay, I see where you are coming from now and agree with you 100%. Thanks for the reply.

You know what wasn't stale and boring? Windows Vista and now Windows 8. How's that worked out for users?

An operating system shouldn't be exciting or stimulating. It should be predictable, consistent, and just stay out of the user's way. Familiarity is a hell of a lot more important than some whizzy new interface that users have to learn.

As for a new coat of paint, I'm not opposed, but how superficial are the people who threaten to leave such a key daily experience on account of "boredom"?

It's a good thing you weren't around when Xerox PARC created the first GUI or Microsoft decided to go from Windows 3.1 to Windows XP.

Now there's a specious if not downright disingenuous comparison.

The CLI to GUI transition was a revolutionary change in interface paradigm that also introduced/required a new hardware interface. This is akin to Apple introducing the multitouch interface that came with iOS. It was a game changer. I fail to see how adding widgets or a faddish "flat" interface or whatever the geeks are jonesing for can be considered a game changer.

Maybe I was a little hyperbolic with PARC comment, but you referred to an OS needing to be "predictable, consistent" and going from command line based to GUI was anything but.

Quote:

(As for Windows 3.1 to XP, you entirely skipped Windows 95 and Windows 98 — I'm fine with pretending ME never existed — in between for some reason. Also, the user interface between Windows 95 to Windows XP saw very little functional changes.)

Mental lapse on my part -- I meant to say Window 95, agree that ME doesn't exist, but the jump from 3.1 to 95 was, also, anything but "predictable, consistent". I don't like or agree with Windows 8 either -- Microsoft is barking up the wrong tree here in trying to make an OS consistent across desktop/laptop and phone/tablet interfaces.

You know what wasn't stale and boring? Windows Vista and now Windows 8. How's that worked out for users?

An operating system shouldn't be exciting or stimulating. It should be predictable, consistent, and just stay out of the user's way. Familiarity is a hell of a lot more important than some whizzy new interface that users have to learn.

As for a new coat of paint, I'm not opposed, but how superficial are the people who threaten to leave such a key daily experience on account of "boredom"?

It's a good thing you weren't around when Xerox PARC created the first GUI or Microsoft decided to go from Windows 3.1 to Windows XP.

The Windows desktop was essentially the same from Windows 95 to Windows 7, or about 14 years. Was anyone complaining about Windows 7? Hardly. It was widely considered Microsofts best effort to date.

IOS has only existed for since 2007, or about 6 years, and yet whiners are complaining that it still looks the same.

That seems like a huge double standard. More functionality is good, but changing the look, because it has been the same for a while, or change, just for the sake of change is silly.

Personally I hope to heck Apple isn't jumping on the Flat Design trend. This is probably the biggest influence Microsoft has had in ages, but it isn't a positive one. Flat design is an eyesore IMO.

Mental lapse on my part -- I meant to say Window 95, agree that ME doesn't exist, but the jump from 3.1 to 95 was, also, anything but "predictable, consistent". I don't like or agree with Windows 8 either -- Microsoft is barking up the wrong tree here in trying to make an OS consistent across desktop/laptop and phone/tablet interfaces.

Actually, they arent. iOS has been doing that, and it seems they wanted to beat them to the punch, except they executed it incredibly bad.

"We think that the customer pays us to make certain choices on their behalf,"

This statement probably conveys the essence of Apple's product line more clearly than anything else I've heard. And it's pretty much exactly true for about 99% of their customers.

I happen to disagree when it comes to my own gear -- Android manufacturers also make choices for their customers but you can do something else if you disagree with the choice -- but you can't argue with Apple's financial success with this philosophy.

I agree that Cook's statement is truthful, but I don't see it as a positive. McDonalds also make a lot of choices on behalf of their customers.

You know what wasn't stale and boring? Windows Vista and now Windows 8. How's that worked out for users?

An operating system shouldn't be exciting or stimulating. It should be predictable, consistent, and just stay out of the user's way. Familiarity is a hell of a lot more important than some whizzy new interface that users have to learn.

As for a new coat of paint, I'm not opposed, but how superficial are the people who threaten to leave such a key daily experience on account of "boredom"?

It's a good thing you weren't around when Xerox PARC created the first GUI or Microsoft decided to go from Windows 3.1 to Windows XP.

The Windows desktop was essentially the same from Windows 95 to Windows 7, or about 14 years. Was anyone complaining about Windows 7? Hardly. It was widely considered Microsofts best effort to date.

IOS has only existed for since 2007, or about 6 years, and yet whiners are complaining that it still looks the same.

That seems like a huge double standard. More functionality is good, but changing the look, because it has been the same for a while, or change, just for the sake of change is silly.

Personally I hope to heck Apple isn't jumping on the Flat Design trend. This is probably the biggest influence Microsoft has had in ages, but it isn't a positive one. Flat design is an eyesore IMO.

The Windows interface since 95 has always been highly customizable, can you claim the same about iOS?

Personally I hope to heck Apple isn't jumping on the Flat Design trend. This is probably the biggest influence Microsoft has had in ages, but it isn't a positive one. Flat design is an eyesore IMO.

I'm with you there.

I've yet to see one of those "flat" iOS mockups floating around the web that can be considered an improvement functionally, let alone aesthetically. If anything, these mockups have turned me from a skeuomorphism detractor to a "there's a place for some skeuomorphism" person.

Kudos to Microsoft for trying something new, but I've yet to see how the Metro/Modern interface can be applied to applications (something besides a start/home screen) like a word processor or a music sequencer. I think it's rather telling that Microsoft themselves haven't come up with Office for the new interface yet.

You know what wasn't stale and boring? Windows Vista and now Windows 8. How's that worked out for users?

An operating system shouldn't be exciting or stimulating. It should be predictable, consistent, and just stay out of the user's way. Familiarity is a hell of a lot more important than some whizzy new interface that users have to learn.

As for a new coat of paint, I'm not opposed, but how superficial are the people who threaten to leave such a key daily experience on account of "boredom"?

It's a good thing you weren't around when Xerox PARC created the first GUI or Microsoft decided to go from Windows 3.1 to Windows XP.

The Windows desktop was essentially the same from Windows 95 to Windows 7, or about 14 years. Was anyone complaining about Windows 7? Hardly. It was widely considered Microsofts best effort to date.

IOS has only existed for since 2007, or about 6 years, and yet whiners are complaining that it still looks the same.

That seems like a huge double standard. More functionality is good, but changing the look, because it has been the same for a while, or change, just for the sake of change is silly.

Personally I hope to heck Apple isn't jumping on the Flat Design trend. This is probably the biggest influence Microsoft has had in ages, but it isn't a positive one. Flat design is an eyesore IMO.

The Windows interface since 95 has always been highly customizable, can you claim the same about iOS?

How was this a good thing?

You say this as if people actually did something better with 95's customizable interface than replacing their mouse cursors with little running horses and applying xenomorph window skins.

Being unable to set a default app is one of the few things that I've disliked about iOS, and I've always been a bit curious why Apple hasn't been willing to create a system for it. I figured that Apple would probably talk about the user experience as Tim did, and that does make sense. However, why not just make setup a program where a developer can submit their app to be approved by Apple as a valid replacement app in a specific category? This allows Apple to retain that tight control over the user experience while still allowing some of those creative app developers to make their apps even more easy to access. The only negative aspect of this would be the cost to Apple as it would probably include personnel-based testing the app for at least part of the approval process. I would also imagine that the rules on these apps would be much stricter, as I doubt Apple wants things like ad-supported software to be able to be set as the default.

I don't like or agree with Windows 8 either -- Microsoft is barking up the wrong tree here in trying to make an OS consistent across desktop/laptop and phone/tablet interfaces.

Convergence is only a question of time, not if. It's the correct tree to be barking up, but Microsoft did it in one of the ugliest ways possible. A future MS OS may get it more correct, but I think Apple is more likely to produce a consistent OS across all platforms that works well before MS will. iOS and OS X are built on the same foundations, appearance and more things being locked down in iOS are the main differences.

I think Apple will stick w/the iOS and OS X split until they feel they have cracked the design of an OS that can function across all platforms and then we will get OS 11, which will run on all Macs and iDevices.

You know what wasn't stale and boring? Windows Vista and now Windows 8. How's that worked out for users?

The Windows desktop was essentially the same from Windows 95 to Windows 7, or about 14 years. Was anyone complaining about Windows 7? Hardly. It was widely considered Microsofts best effort to date.

IOS has only existed for since 2007, or about 6 years, and yet whiners are complaining that it still looks the same.

That seems like a huge double standard. More functionality is good, but changing the look, because it has been the same for a while, or change, just for the sake of change is silly.

Personally I hope to heck Apple isn't jumping on the Flat Design trend. This is probably the biggest influence Microsoft has had in ages, but it isn't a positive one. Flat design is an eyesore IMO.

I remember when forums were full of people hating on the design of 2k, XP, Vista, Win7. Personally I can't stand Win8 but then I am old. It is telling that the college kids I work with hate it too. Have you forgotten just how different the ribbon for Office was when it came out? Yes, it is not officially part of Windows. It is just the most used app on most Windows machines.

"We think that the customer pays us to make certain choices on their behalf,"

This statement probably conveys the essence of Apple's product line more clearly than anything else I've heard. And it's pretty much exactly true for about 99% of their customers.

I happen to disagree when it comes to my own gear -- Android manufacturers also make choices for their customers but you can do something else if you disagree with the choice -- but you can't argue with Apple's financial success with this philosophy.

I was going to make basically this exact same comment when I saw the story, but decided not to bother when I recalled that my personal peanut gallery would be along to vote it down to -20 soon enough.

Walled garden or padded room, whatever you want to call it, Apple likes to hold on to the control.

That video represented the change from mainframes to small personal computers, like lightweight terminals at work. There were plenty of things Apple didn't want you doing w/their system back then. Compare the expansion options on the Apple II (insisted on my Woz) vs the expansion ports on a first run Mac (as specified by Jobs). There wasn't much on the Mac for options. The video was a masterful piece of marketing, but Apple has always wanted to be firmly in control of their environment and being restrictive in iOS should surprise no one

Convergence is only a question of time, not if. It's the correct tree to be barking up, but Microsoft did it in one of the ugliest ways possible. A future MS OS may get it more correct, but I think Apple is more likely to produce a consistent OS across all platforms that works well before MS will. iOS and OS X are built on the same foundations, appearance and more things being locked down in iOS are the main differences.

I think Apple will stick w/the iOS and OS X split until they feel they have cracked the design of an OS that can function across all platforms and then we will get OS 11, which will run on all Macs and iDevices.

We will never agree on this one. Touch and KB/Mouse are completely different interactions and the interfaces need to be different. Microsoft didn't really create anything converged, they created something bifurcated. They grafted a completely different Touch UI (Metro which is essentially an OS unto itself) onto a traditional Win32 Desktop. They aren't converged, they reside in messy coexistence with the same product (Windows 8).

Apple, a company dedicated to simplicity and focus, will never converge on one OS for such divergent usage patterns.

That video represented the change from mainframes to small personal computers, like lightweight terminals at work. There were plenty of things Apple didn't want you doing w/their system back then. Compare the expansion options on the Apple II (insisted on my Woz) vs the expansion ports on a first run Mac (as specified by Jobs). There wasn't much on the Mac for options. The video was a masterful piece of marketing, but Apple has always wanted to be firmly in control of their environment and being restrictive in iOS should surprise no one

The commercial was about being different from the masses of blind followers and embracing something new, powerful, and exciting. It's a theme they have run with for a long time, and it's a lifestyle that was always embraced by the Apple fanbase, even when it clearly wasn't true. Especially today as the legions of iOS users are much closer to the blind followers in that original commercial than Anya Major.

The reason that PCs beat Macs was because most people like choice. It's the same reason that Android is beating and will continue to beat out iOS in adoption (if not for form factor choice over OS choice). And likely the reason that Apple is finally considering multiple versions of the next iPhone.